Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Syrsuro" data-source="post: 4341400" data-attributes="member: 58162">I have to go with &quot;Yes, at half speed&quot; (and one-half of 1 is alway 0). There isn't any specific rule saying that you cannot shift while prone, but there is a clear general rule saying that while prone you move at half speed and no exception rule for shifting that would exempt it from this general rule.&nbsp;Conclusion: Shifting is possible but unless you can shift more than two squares normally you can only move 0 squares with a shift.&nbsp;And yes, the counterargument is the line &quot;If you leave a square adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you.&quot; from the Crawl description.&nbsp; But that is, imho, simply a restatement of the general rule &quot;If an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you, you can make an oportunity attack against that enemy.&quot; which appears in the opportunity attack section, followed there (but not in the crawl section) immediately by the exception to the general rule, which is that shifting and forced movement avoid that OA.&nbsp;&nbsp; The question really comes down to whether the ommission of the shift special case in the crawl description was intentional because it doesn't apply to crawl or intentional because they didn't see any point in repeating a rule that is printed elsewhere (or simply an oversight and no conclusion can be drawn).To put it differently - the half-movement interpretation makes it so that under most circumstances you cannot shift, but leaving open the possibility of a shift under specific circumstances, such as when the defender takes a double move or is especially shifty.&nbsp; Which feels about right, imho.&nbsp;&nbsp;Carl</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Syrsuro, post: 4341400, member: 58162"] I have to go with "Yes, at half speed" (and one-half of 1 is alway 0). There isn't any specific rule saying that you cannot shift while prone, but there is a clear general rule saying that while prone you move at half speed and no exception rule for shifting that would exempt it from this general rule. Conclusion: Shifting is possible but unless you can shift more than two squares normally you can only move 0 squares with a shift. And yes, the counterargument is the line "If you leave a square adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you." from the Crawl description. But that is, imho, simply a restatement of the general rule "If an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you, you can make an oportunity attack against that enemy." which appears in the opportunity attack section, followed there (but not in the crawl section) immediately by the exception to the general rule, which is that shifting and forced movement avoid that OA. The question really comes down to whether the ommission of the shift special case in the crawl description was intentional because it doesn't apply to crawl or intentional because they didn't see any point in repeating a rule that is printed elsewhere (or simply an oversight and no conclusion can be drawn). To put it differently - the half-movement interpretation makes it so that under [I]most[/I] circumstances you cannot shift, but leaving open the possibility of a shift under specific circumstances, such as when the defender takes a double move or is especially shifty. Which [I]feels[/I] about right, imho. Carl [/QUOTE]

Verification